Archived: Heather House

Updated 29 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 24 March 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the registered provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We contacted commissioners from the local authorities and health authorities who contracted people’s care. We spoke with the local safeguarding teams.

During this inspection we carried out observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not communicate with us.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who lived at Heather House, two relatives, the registered manager and four support workers. We observed care and support in communal areas and looked in the kitchen. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. We looked at care records for three people, recruitment, training and induction records for four staff, four people’s medicines records, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who used the service, the maintenance book, maintenance contracts and quality assurance audits the registered manager had completed.

Updated 29 April 2017

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 24 March 2017.

We last inspected Heather House in November 2015. At that inspection we found the service was not meeting all of its legal requirements with regard to staffing levels, people receiving a choice of food and meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At this inspection we found that action had been taken to meet the relevant legal requirements.

Heather House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 adults who have a learning disability. This includes care for one person who is supported by staff in a bungalow which is separate from the main building. Nursing care is not provided.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. There were enough staff available to provide individual care to people. Arrangements were in place to handle people’s monies safely. Systems were in place to ensure the home was well maintained and a programme of refurbishment was planned to take place around the building.

Staff received opportunities for training to meet peoples' care needs and in a safe way. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were robust recruitment processes used when staff were employed. The registered manager and staff were meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way. People who used the service received a varied diet and had food and drink to meet their needs.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. They were supported to maintain some control in their lives. They were given information in a format that helped them to understand if they did not read. This encouraged their involvement in every day decision making.

There was regular consultation with people and/or family members and their views were used to improve the service. A complaints procedure was available and written in a way to help people understand if they did not read. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

The registered provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. We have made a recommendation that satisfaction surveys used to collect people’s views about the service should be developed to ensure they reflect people’s priorities about the service they receive or would like to receive.